I've spoken to and gotten email this morning from many readers who are extremely upset with Steve Kraske's analysis of last night's presidential debate. And when I say "extremely upset," I'm not exaggerating. One caller just now, her voice trembling with anger, told me she was canceling because the front page didn't say boldly that Romney had won the debate. She then slammed the phone down in my ear.
The fury is because Kraske's analysis is out of step with what the majority of pundits are saying today. That's fine -- and I've long thought it's fair to debate whether analyses of any kind belong in the news sections at all. I understand fully when readers ask whether that's an appropriate type of piece for a news reporter to write, as it involves interpretation and subjectivity that professional journalists attempt to avoid in straight news coverage. (Do go and read the piece, though. It does not, as some callers have said, give a straight endorsement of Obama for president.)
There are only two counterpoints I'll make here:
1. The editorial board wrote that Romney won. That's the general consensus on the left today, where disappointment in Obama's performance is the dominant theme.
2. The constant drumbeat I've heard from conservative readers for many years is that all journalists across all media march in lockstep, always agreeing with each other on every topic. Well, here we have a longtime political reporter who has a take that's different from most out there -- and suddenly that is evidence of The Star's overall bias? There's a serious disconnect here.
If you don't like the analysis, by all means write a letter to the editor about it or join the chorus in the comments online.